Pima County Supes hold off on further review of Sheriff Nanos after he responds to questions

The Pima County Board of Supervisors has postponed a public discussion of Sheriff Chris Nanos’ response to a series of questions, including queries about his disciplinary history, how he manages the department’s budget, and whether deputies cooperate with immigration authorities.

On Tuesday afternoon, as the board prepared to talk about Nanos, his
attorney submitted a 13-page letter responding to questions posed by the supervisors earlier this month.

During the meeting, Pima County Administrator Jan Lesher left the
room. She returned to announce that the report had been received, telling the Board of Supervisors it arrived around 2
p.m. Lesher said the document was immediately released to the public and
hard copies were given to the Board of Supervisors. 

“We’ve received it; we’ve
distributed it. I have not read it,” Lesher said.

“Given that
we’ve just received,” the sheriff’s response, Board Chair Jen Allen asked to postpone
discussion to the next
meeting on May 12 — scheduled later in the month while the board transitions to evening meetings. Supervisor Matt Heinz agreed, and the board approved the delay unanimously.

Earlier this month, the Board of Supervisors sent Nanos several questions, asking for him to explain “prior representations regarding” his employment history in El Paso, the circumstances of his departure, the dates of his employment, and prior disciplinary history, including suspensions.

The board asked him to discuss the “accuracy and completeness” of his official background, as well as disciplinary actions involving former
deputy Heather Lappin — who attempted to unseat Nanos during the 2024
election—and union leader Sgt. Aaron Cross, a staunch critic of the sheriff. This included the “process, standards, and considerations applied in those matters.”

Arizona state
law allows a county board to require any other county elected official
to “make reports under oath on any matter connected with the duties of
his office.” If an official refuses, they may be removed from office,
with the board appointing a replacement.

Before the board could
attempt to remove Nanos, he had to be provided the opportunity to answer
questions — and state law only give the board the ability to oust the
sheriff if he refuses, not if they disapprove of his responses. The
board of nearly all Democrats — just one of the five supervisors is a
Republican — laid the foundation to require the Democratic sheriff to
give such a report, and potentially oust him from office if he refused.

The law notes the board may require any county officer to “make reports under oath,” however, the Board of Supervisors did not specifically require Nanos to respond in that way, making only a general reference to the law. His report was provided by his attorney without any reference to an oath or it being submitted under penalty of perjury.

Board Chair Jen Allen told her fellow supervisors they created a placeholder in the agenda in case Nanos arrived to answer their
questions in person. However, “we understood he was going to place
something in writing.”

Nanos did not attend the meeting, instead relying on his attorney.

Angelica Carrillo, a PCSD spokesperson, sent out a statement around 11
a.m. Tuesday that Nanos “through his attorney, has fully responded to questions
submitted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors.”

“The matter involves pending civil litigation and therefore will not be
discussed at this time. If additional questions or follow-up requests
arise, Sheriff Nanos remains available to meet with the Board. As
previously stated, he welcomes continued engagement in the interest of
transparency and maintaining public trust,” the department spokesperson wrote.

In recent months, Nanos has faced scrutiny for his leadership at the Pima County Sheriff’s Department after
the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, who was reporting missing from her
home on Feb. 1, prompting a months-long investigation. 

While
Guthrie’s fate remains under investigation, the Arizona
Republic found during a deposition, Nanos said he never received
discipline as law enforcement officer, but was reportedly suspended by
the El Paso Police Department, where he worked in the early 1980s
before coming to Tucson to serve as a corrections officer for PCSD.

During Tuesday’s meeting, the board delayed voting on three measures
introduced by Supervisor Matt Heinz, including an attempt to release a 65-page report from NorthStar Employment and Legal Solutions, the independent firm hired by the county, which investigated Nanos after Lappin, a former lieutenant in the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, alleged the sheriff engaged in workplace bullying and retaliation after she ran against him.

Part of this document was posted online by the Pima County Deputy’s Organization on April 2, but the full report has yet to be released. During Tuesday’s meeting, the Board discussed whether the report during an executive session behind closed doors. After they returned to the public meeting, Supervisor Steve Christy moved to release the report and waive attorney-client privilege, but the motion died for a lack of a second.



Heinz asked to delay a vote on the issue until the supervisors meeting on May 26. The other supervisors agreed, and Christy was outvoted 4-1.

‘Sheriff’s employment history is irrelevant’

In his letter, James M. Cool—an attorney with Frazer Ryan Goldberg & Arnold LLP—responded to the questions posed by the Board of Supervisors on Nanos’ behalf. 

Cool also submitted 10 pages of exhibits, including his client’s resume from the 1980s, a transcript of Nanos’ deposition during a lawsuit from Cross, and a letter from the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, who told the Board of Supervisors his office received and rejected a request to investigate Nanos in November 2024.

“At the outset, allow me to note” that state law “does not authorize an unlimited inquisition,” Cool wrote. “Rather, Sheriff Nanos is only obliged to report on those matters ‘connected with the duties of his office.'”

Cool said Nanos’ duties as sheriff are defined by state law and includes “keeping the peace, arresting and detaining those suspected of criminal activity, preventing and suppressing riots or insurrection, securing county courthouses, overseeing and operating the county jail, and effectuating service of process. That is all.”

“This distinction is significant because it confirms the sheriff’s employment history is irrelevant to the performance of his duties as an elected official subject to oversight by the Board of Supervisors,” Cool said. “Likewise, giving testimony in a civil lawsuit and managing the department’s website, are not among the ‘duties of his office.’ Nevertheless, in the interest of transparency and in the spirit of cooperation, the sheriff has authorized me to respond to the board’s questions as follows.”

‘Bad faith’ media reports

Cool wrote that Nanos left the El Paso Police Department over a dispute with a supervisor, and the fact the department website showed he left in 1984—two years later—was an error, which he “immediately instructed staff to correct it.” 

As part of this, Cool included a copy of Nanos’ resume from May 1984. In the document, complete with a florid early computer font, Nanos noted his awards for professionalism and courage, as well as a raft of awards he received after saving his partner held at gunpoint by a “would-be burglar.”

The Arizona Republic reviewed his record from El Paso and noted Nanos was suspended eight times as a young officer in Texas for serious issues, including excessive force, improperly discharging a weapon, and off-duty gambling. 

As the newspaper wrote on Tuesday, Nanos was “taken off the job for beating a handcuffed suspect until the man suffered blood loss and was admitted to a hospital”  and later threatened to “waste” a witness “who participated in a disciplinary complaint against him, then lied about having stopped the man on the street.”

The Republic referred to 93 pages of records, which the paper said paint “a clearer picture of how Nanos went from being honored as officer of the year in 1980 to being kicked out of the department just two years later.”

Cool told the board that Nanos’ disciplinary history is “irrelevant to the performance of his official duties” as an elected sheriff, adding his client was the subject of ” robust public scrutiny” during the 2024 election and the public record “includes information about his decorated career as a sworn peace officer.” 

“Armed with this information, the voters of Pima County elected him as sheriff,” Cool wrote. “Whatever the sheriff did or did not do before being elected is necessarily unrelated to his performance of the duties of his office.”

Cool also referred to the Republic’s story on Nanos’ as among “bad faith” media reports.

He said Nanos was asked, “Have you ever received discipline as a law enforcement officer?” And, Nanos said “yes.” 

 Nanos made the statements as part of a lawsuit filed by Cross over his suspension.

In a follow-up question, Nanos was asked “Did you ever receive a discipline that rose to the level of a suspension?” And, Nanos said no.

“Bad faith media reports have divorced this testimony from its context to suggest Sheriff Nanos was untruthful about his disciplinary history with the El Paso Police Department. But context matters,” Cool wrote. He argued that Nanos was referring to his tenure at PCSD, and not his previous job in El Paso.

“It is 100% correct that Sheriff Nanos was never suspended during his four decades of decorated and faithful service with the Pima County Sheriff’s Department,” Cool wrote. “However, Sheriff Nanos was suspended more than 40 years ago while employed by El Paso Police Department.”

“In the context of his live deposition, Sheriff Nanos did not understand the question related to discipline with a different agency,” Cool said, adding Nanos “spotted his misunderstanding and promptly notified his attorney.”

Cool also challenged the claims from Lappin and Cross, but he told the board that discussions should take place in executive sessions because Nanos faces lawsuits from both. “Moreover, the sheriff must be mindful of the impact his public statements in response to this inquiry could have on the litigation,” he said. 

Cool argued Cross admitted he violated policy and asked for a reprimand in lieu of termination, and Nanos reduced disciplinary measures “over the objections of his command staff.”

In October, just weeks before the election Lappin—who ran against Nanos
as a Republican—was suspended from her post at the Pima County Jail
because she, in the framing of Nanos’ department, “colluded with a
journalist” to pay an inmate for a news story.

In fact, John
Washington, a reporter for Arizona Luminaria, communicated with Lappin
to understand the process for reimbursing an inmate for the cost of a
phone call from jail—totaling $20 and a $4.99 fee—as part of his
reporting on conditions at the Pima County Adult Detention Center.
Journalists don’t violate any ethical codes by reimbursing sources for
basic minor expenses necessary to report a story.

As part of her
suspension, Lappin was precluded from speaking to the public about the
reasons for her administrative leave she said, and mandated to stay home during
regular business hours.

In a press release at the time, Nanos
added he was requesting investigations by the Arizona Attorney General’s
Office and the FBI to see if Lappin—a two-decade veteran of the
department—broke state and federal laws in addition to Pima County merit
system rules and department policies. Lappin later sued, filing a $2
million claim which accused Nanos of launching retaliatory
investigations against her.

PCSD also suspended Cross,
president of the Pima County Deputy’s Organization, for allegedly
wearing “department-issued” clothing during two campaign events for
Lappin. Nanos faced censure for his actions from Heinz, and he defend
himself by arguing Lappin’s decision to run while employed at the
department was “disruptive.”

Despite this, Lappin’s campaign
nearly unmoored the sheriff from his position, and he won by a
razor-thin margin, earning just 481 votes after a recount.

Based
in Tucson, Northstar is run by Alexis Sharpe, an attorney who
specializes in civil litigation and employment law. That outside firm
submitted the report on March 19 and Lesher signed the memo on March 23.

Northstar reviewed Lappin’s complaint and found Nanos did not
engage in bullying, writing that a “preponderance of the evidence does
not support a finding” Nanos acted to create “a hostile or abusive
workplace.”

However, Northstar said Nanos “used his authority and department resources for political gain”

“The
evidence includes considering Lt. Lappin’s political campaign in
investigation and disciplinary decision making, culminating in issuing a
press release that included information obtained in his capacity as
sheriff,” Northstar said.

Cross told Tucson Sentinel the report was a “vindication and great news for Heather Lappin.”

Cross has long criticized Nanos’ leadership and leads one of PCSD’s five union organizations. During the 2024 election, Cross was among the current and former deputies who urged voters to cast their ballots for Lappin during a press conference featuring Dr. Richard Carmona — a former deputy and U.S. surgeon general who worked to keep Nanos from winning in 2016.

“Unfortunately, Nanos gets to decide his own punishment and those of his senior commanders, so nothing will be done,” Cross said earlier this month. “Between lying about his background, lying under oath, and these substantiated violations he should resign immediately,” Cross said.

“Despite getting exactly what he wanted, and heedless of his own admissions, Sgt. Cross immediately grieved the lenient discipline he received,” attorney Cool wrote to the board. Cross, he said, was “disciplined as a result of a sustained finding that he violated the Hatch Act.”

“Any suggestion that Sheriff Nanos ‘retaliated’ against Sgt. Cross by sparing him from termination (as his peers recommended) blinks at reality,” Cool added. 

Cool added that Lappin “was suspected of multiple violations” of PCSD policy “based on credible evidence, and merited investigations.” During this investigation, Lappin was placed on administrative leave, and while she was required to remain available during normal working hours, and limited from discussing the investigation against her, she was “free to engage in all other protected speech activity” including to campainging against Nanos, Cool wrote. 

He added the agency’s review panel recommended a letter of reprimand, and county officials later rejected her request for review. “To be clear, the allegations made by former Lt. Lappin have been extensively litigated in both federal court and the court of public opinion.”

Cool told the Board of Supervisors the entire incident was because of a change to county policy allowing county employees to run for county office without leaving their jobs. “It is not surprising that the first election following this regrettable change in policy showcased the predictable ways in which active employees running for county office can adversely impact departmental operations,” Cool argued.

Cool defends Nanos’ from ACLU lawsuit and budget complaints

Cool also responded to a question from the board over whether the Sheriff’s Department works with Border Patrol. In March, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed a lawsuit, accusing PCSD of handing people over to Border Patrol agents during incidents in 2021 and 2023.

“PCSD deputies appear to have engaged in unconstitutional coordination with federal immigration authorities, generally against Spanish-speaking individuals who cannot produce U.S. identification but are under no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing,” the ACLU said in court filings.

In the letter to the Board on Nanos’ behalf, Cool said interactions between deputies and federal immigration officials are guided by rules and regulations, and the “policies speak for themselves.”

Deputies do not ask about immigration status during routine contacts, unless it’s a “valid element of criminal investigation.” The agency does not allow ICE agents to operate inside the jail, and does not accept administrative warrants, or requests to hold someone until ICE can arrive, otherwise known as ICE detainers. 

However, Cool noted that PCSD operates a Public Safety Answering Point—the 911 call center— which receives phone calls from the public and calls involving immigration enforcement are routed to ICE, Homeland Security Investigations, or Border Patrol “as may be appropriate.”

“This is consistent with Sheriff Nanos’ policy of leaving immigration and border enforcement to federal law enforcement,” Cool wrote.

Cool said PCSD was tracking those calls under Nanos’ predecessor Sheriff Mark Napier, but once he took office Nanos ordered deputies to stop. However, “unbeknownst to Sheriff Nanos, staff continued to track the contacts but did not provide summaries.”

Cool added, incorrectly, that PCSD is the only agency in Arizona that has declined to mandate certification for deputies under a program known as 287(g), making the department ineligible for many federal grants. Data from ICE shows out of 15 sheriff’s departments in Arizona, a half-dozen have the agreements with ICE. However, except for the Mesa Police Department, local police agencies in Arizona do not have similar agreements.

He also defended Nanos’ efforts to maintain his agency’s budget, arguing the Board has “unfairly” implied the sheriff has “failed to properly manage the department’s budget.” 

“Not so,” Cool wrote. “Three of the last five fiscal years, the department has performed under budget. In the two years department expenditures exceeded its budget,”

Cool said there were two years when the department exceeding its budget, including a 0.84 percent overrun caused by a 7.5 percent mid-year pay increase for 400 corrections employees. “The raw data speaks for itself and atteststo the Sheriff’s sound fiscal management.” 

“No explanation or justification is needed. But make no mistake, from a funding perspective, the department is fighting for the residents of Pima County with one hand tied behind its back,” Cool argued, adding the agency faces a “host of unfunded mandates.”